D&D (2024) Playtest 8 Spell Discussion

[Yaarel]

I disagree. Social skills work just fine with what we have in the PHB. The DMG just help adjudicate those rules which is helpful(but not required) for DMs. I can in fact run the game with the PHB only, having never read the DMG. I know what each says, so I know this to be true.

the playtests are consolidating all the info about skills, including social skills, into one place. So 2024 will probably have ALL of the necessary rules in the Players Handbook.

This encourages the players to become DMs since they will already be familiar with all of the rules necessary to adjudicate a game.

 

[Maxperson]

the playtests are consolidating all the info about skills, including social skills, into one place. So 2024 will probably have ALL of the necessary rules in the Players Handbook.

This encourages the players to become DMs since they will already be familiar with all of the rules necessary to adjudicate a game.

Maybe. There's a reason I keep saying "not currently RAW" and "Not RAW by the 2014 rules." I don't know if what you say above will be true, but it could be.

 

[Stalker0]

have a special ability to allow that OR movies don't follow RAW. Which do you think it is, because it isn't PHB RAW what she did.

I don't think this is the point though.

The point is....when people see a dnd movie, there is going to be a natural desire by many to emulate them. I want my character to be able to do the kinds of things I see in the dnd movie.

So when people are debating things like verbal components and how spellcasting works in combat, they are naturally going to look at sources like the movies and say "I mean clearly spellcasting can't be that loud, just look at the wizard fight".

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think this is the point though.

The point is....when people see a dnd movie, there is going to be a natural desire by many to emulate them. I want my character to be able to do the kinds of things I see in the dnd movie.

So when people are debating things like verbal components and how spellcasting works in combat, they are naturally going to look at sources like the movies and say "I mean clearly spellcasting can't be that loud, just look at the wizard fight".

When discussing what is or isn't allowed by RAW, it's exactly the point. There's nothing wrong with folks wanting to emulate what they saw in the movie. Those things are not going to become RAW unless they appear in the 2024 PHB, though. And will require DM approval since they are not RAW.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

When discussing what is or isn't allowed by RAW, it's exactly the point. There's nothing wrong with folks wanting to emulate what they saw in the movie. Those things are not going to become RAW unless they appear in the 2024 PHB, though. And will require DM approval since they are not RAW.

Speaking of THAT, I always wonder when people question things like Doric turning onto an owlbear. The answer is simple. Her DM household it. Obviously her DM let their BBEG cast without verbal components too!

 

[Maxperson]

Speaking of THAT, I always wonder when people question things like Doric turning onto an owlbear. The answer is simple. Her DM household it. Obviously her DM let their BBEG cast without verbal components too!

Sure, but "The DM house ruled it." sort of ends most conversations cold, since of course he can.

Most discussions come from disagreement or interest in what something means/says, which makes RAW the catalyst for a LOT of discussions.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Are you seriously arguing that a stat block created after the fact that has no rules(all rules are in the PHB) to back it up means that the movie was RAW? Really?

The movie is entirely irrelevant to RAW. 100% of RAW is in the 2014 PHB. Nothing else put out is RAW. Nothing. The rest are optional rules and guidelines. The movie isn't even that much.

Now perhaps in 2024 turning into an owlbear and that special ability will be RAW, but into then it's 100% not.

Special pleading won't really change anything. You declared that Sofina was either no following RAW or had a special ability. Then you declared Doric was clearly breaking the rules. Now, when shown she has a special ability, you are declaring with no evidence that that statblock was made after the fact and has no rules to back it up.

Also, you are wrong that the only rules are in the PHB.

But here is the kicker. We have both statblocks. Doric was deemed necessary to give a special ability to. Sofina wasn't. That was likely because Sofina didn't break RAW.

 

[Chaosmancer]

5e DMG.

"This book has two important companions: the Player's Handbook, which contains the rules your players need to create characters and the rules you need to run the game, and the Monster Manual, which contains ready-to use monsters to populate your D&D world."

If you read the DMG it's guidelines this and guidelines that, because it has no rules in it. The rules are the PHB.

Where are the rules for creating a Harengon Artificer?

 

[Maxperson]

Special pleading won't really change anything.

Then don't do it. Trying to use the movie is a special pleading to RAW. Movies and other media that don't have to conform to RAW have never been RAW, so trying to make this movie an exception is a special pleading by you.

You declared that Sofina was either no following RAW or had a special ability. Then you declared Doric was clearly breaking the rules. Now, when shown she has a special ability, you are declaring with no evidence that that statblock was made after the fact and has no rules to back it up.

You do understand that "a special ability" also isn't RAW, right?

When I said that it translated into, "She either was not following RAW or was not following RAW."

Also, you are wrong that the only rules are in the PHB.

Not according to 5e. Optional rules =/= rules.

But here is the kicker. We have both statblocks. Doric was deemed necessary to give a special ability to. Sofina wasn't. That was likely because Sofina didn't break RAW.

Except that she did. RAW doesn't allow you to hide the verbal component absent a specific ability to do so, which is why those specific abilities exist. Specific beats general.

Where are the rules for creating a Harengon Artificer?

Neither that race nor class are RAW. RAW are the core default rules to the game, so optional rules are not RAW and can't be assumed to be in place. Rules that must be optioned in to be in place are in effect official house rules if they come from an official book and are no different than if you created a race of your own for your game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Then don't do it. Trying to use the movie is a special pleading to RAW. Movies and other media that don't have to conform to RAW have never been RAW, so trying to make this movie an exception is a special pleading by you.

I'm not the one who brought up the Harry Potter movie. I am also not the one who declared it was a bad example because it was not a DnD movie. You have only started declaring that movies don't count AFTER a DnD movie that counters your position was put forth. If the movie agreed with you, you would use it as evidence.

You do understand that "a special ability" also isn't RAW, right?

Then why did you make the distinction? A distinction you want to get rid of now that it doesn't support you.

When I said that it translated into, "She either was not following RAW or was not following RAW."

So your defense of your position is that it was nonsense disguised as a point? You seem to keep changing what you meant to say everytime your position becomes untenable.

Not according to 5e. Optional rules =/= rules.

Rules are not rules is your new position? Well, I will counter that rules are rules.

Except that she did. RAW doesn't allow you to hide the verbal component absent a specific ability to do so, which is why those specific abilities exist. Specific beats general.

Except she doesn't have that ability. We discussed that already.

Neither that race nor class are RAW. RAW are the core default rules to the game, so optional rules are not RAW and can't be assumed to be in place. Rules that must be optioned in to be in place are in effect official house rules if they come from an official book and are no different than if you created a race of your own for your game.

So there is no RAW for Artificers? No RAW for any sorcerer except the wild magic or Draconic?

No RAW for magic items.
No RAW for feats.
No RAW for multi-classing.

You do realize that if I corrected someone who said "we are only playing RAW" by removing 80% of the player options, they would look at me like I'm insane.

"Rules as Written" does not mean "only the rules in the PHB, which are not explicitly called out as variants."

It means the rules... as they are written, without adding or changing them.